What is Digg?51 Comments
- Enjoikr3w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Take a screenshot of the picture.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I give it about 13 minutes before anyone and everyone with even 10% of a brain figures out how this works and how to "turn it off".
- eMadman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11What's wrong with Digimarc? I do a bit of amateur photography myself, and I'd love to be able to afford to use a system like theirs. I don't mind people using my work for non-profit purposes, but I like to know if it's being used and where. Otherwise I'd be yet another artist not getting credit for his work on the internet.
- iShouldveKnown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14nope.
- JohnnyBoy117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Think this'll be able to stop eBaumsWorld in their life-sucking campaign to steal all material off the internet and slap that ugly little name of theirs on it?
- gunbuster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Old news, we've been using their watermarking for a while. And for the "phoning home", that's not a very accurate description. It's more like this - there are 3rd party companies that provide a service whereby they scour the net looking for Digimarc'd images. When it finds them, it can alert the copyright owner, or in some cases, automatically send a C&D letter to the site owner (if being used illegally).
The watermarks aren't perfect, and anyone with half a brain can generally destroy the watermark. But there are a lot of people with less than half a brain, and generally these are the ones that are ripping us off to begin with. - iShouldveKnown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, digimarc has been around for years. The patent was filed in 1998, but didn't get approved until now. Does anyone actually take the time to read the articles? It's all in there.
- Chant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ÿØÿà JFIF ,, ÿí êPhotoshop 3.0 8BIMí , , 8BIMó 8BIM
8BIM .http://www.digimarc.com/cgi-bin/ci.pl?1+8922288BIM
Chunk of the jpeg above.. i'm assuming this is part of the watermarking
Link appears to be phoning home.. didn't realize you could open sockets with image headers.. or is it up to the 'social networking' site to read the header of the digimarc'd file? - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@z0iid
Sorry. I saved your picture from the web browser and opened it in photoshop. When I read the watermark, it's still telling me it contains Digimarc ID 892228, and that the rights are still restricted.
Thank you...please come again. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3zippo, that would be completely useless and stupid, it is for hosted images. This isn't any sort of spyware.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3your firewall comment is beside the point. This isn't an application installed on your computer reporting on what you download. This is talking about a robot that crawls websites (just like Google and other search engines do) and then reports on any marked images it finds.
- iShouldveKnown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://www.tempesttours.com/Hooker%20Tornado%20over%20road%20Lisius%20copy%20digimarc%2089228.JPG
That image is digimarc'd. You have about 13 minutes and 10% of a brain. Let us know when you figure it out! - Switch22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If this solution has existed for years, obviously nothing has changed.
It's like giving someone with a broken leg a band aid. It might make some people feel better, but it's not going to solve the problem. - Etaoin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3enjoikr3w makes a good point - although I wouldn't bother taking an actual screenshot (especially since the image could be larger than the screen res). Just convert to bitmap and back. (You might get a little bit more artifacting, but you can use a lossless format if that kind of thing bothers you.)
- zhulien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2for arguments sake, lets' say that you had an insecure website which lets you download a copyrighted file 'file1' (which you own the copyright to) but first you had to accept a licence agreement before you could download it. let's say on the same site (which you could only gain access to by agreeing to the licence of 'file1'), was also a copyrighted file 'file2' that you didn't own the copyrights to (whether you had permission to distribute it or not doesn't change the licence of 'file1' though). unless someone manually accepts the terms of the 'file1' licence, they couldn't legally download 'file2' anyway right? does that mean a robot that checks watermarks would potentially be breaking copyright laws in order to check copyrights?
- cryptoisfun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had a project in undergrad where I tested the robustness of Digimarc's watermarks at different strength settings, albeit on images and not sound data. They were surprisingly difficult to remove. For the most part, even the most lossy compression didn't remove the watermark. The most effective attack was removing every other line, but then the image looks quite messed up.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd find it more amusing to seed the intarweb with lots of false positives for them to get their knickers all in a twist.
- stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Switch22: you must be new here. You're supposed to voice your opinion with the little red and green buttons on the top left of zhulien's comment. Green is for "I like it", red is for "I don't like it". We call this "digging" comments up or down!
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure it can...it's just not solving the problem you are thinking about. Of course theres no way to stop copying. That's not the problem this is intended to solve. This is supposed to solve the problem of not knowing that people copied your stuff. Of course, it's not a perfect solution...it won't find it hidden in a private intranet, nor will it find it hidden on some obscure webpage. But if it's just copied to someones myspace page, or used on some corporation's homepage, it should be found.
Solving part of the problem is better than solving none of it. - cryptoisfun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steganography has been around longer than DRM.
- Mactard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can it read a piece of a rar file?
- FormulaVette, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does the image above go to http://www.digimarc.com/cgi-bin/ci.pl?1+892228 by any chance... I found that url in photoshop
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How does this help owners? Unless they go through costly court battles, there is little chance the perpetrators will actually remove the coprighted material from the website.
- postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just take a Polaroid. I mean duh
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Blocked.
- SomeManbeapig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DRM 2.0
- Chant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On second thoughts digimarc could just have a bot crawl all images and videos promoted by sites such as digg then parse them all for their own link.. pretty neat idea... easily stopped if you're a shady site.. but i can't see youtube doing something like that
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well, that was a lot more than 13 minutes
- Roscoe1976, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ruh Roh, looks like Engadget is outta business!
- ceralor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just remove the EXIF data using any image editor capable of doing so. GIMP is one of them.
- z0iid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://s13.c.jones.googlepages.com/test.JPG
Found your remark about having 13 min.
30 seconds to open w/ ps - modify the copyright info, put it as public domain and put in my own info.
45 seconds or less to login to googlepages, upload and post this. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cryptoisfun
Exactly. That's what most of the posters seem to not realize...Digimarc watermarks have been pretty robust in the past. They survive lossy recompression, downsampling, and even printing and rescanning. - z0iid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok, before anybody calls me on my bs...yes, i know the xmp data says 8 minutes. cause i was putzing around....im at work and had to answer the phone. but oh well, still 5 min to spare.
- slimcady, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ishouldveknown
well, Photoshop says that the Digimarc watermark for that image is no longer valid.
http://www.digimarc.com/products/imagebridge/signup/MCexpired.asp
so is it still phoning home? - bowels, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If water is added to these files, won't they get rusty?
- z0iid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0there, fixed. original link still works
http://s13.c.jones.googlepages.com/test.jpg - dangerousnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow!
54 Diggs and the front page!
Halfcockedjack FTW! - EricTheGrey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The system downloads audio, video and images, and then scans them for watermarks. If it finds a watermark it recognizes, the system then contacts that mark's registered owner and informs them of the discovery."
Sounds like a great way to build a huge collection of videos and music... :D
Other than that, like others have said, someone will figure out a way to bypass it and at the very least, it's possible to block any particular application from running out to the internet whenever it wants to. See, those little software firewalls are good for something...
EtG - thebass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I've used DigiMarc years ago. I don't see how this qualifies, "New"
- viviwanu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1yeah right! Not a penny from me!
- fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Just convert it to a different format?
- Switch22, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I've been a member longer than you...
- Switch22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1tldr
- Trention, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Really? Who makes it? They just got a patent for it, so perhaps they'll get driven out of business. I don't think there's another similar system though.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Use a firewall and block any outgoing calls home to Digimark
- sirjimbob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2This has been around for years...
- CapJackSparrow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0http://digg.com/offbeat_news/A_selection_from_Walden_Pond_by_Henry_David_Thoreau
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Capitalism at it's best...
- Flamekebab, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3If it was a new buzz-phrase, then yes, but it's not. So you fail.
- InfernoZeus, on 10/12/2007, -29/+2"phone home" - Anyone else thinking of ET??
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
